What do union members get from Labour link?

A growing number of left activists in the trade unions are frustrated with the continued financial and political links between the unions and the Labour Party. This is hardly surprising given the attacks on working-class people carried out since Blair's New Labour government was elected in 1997.

A UNISON member

Privatisation of the NHS and other public services continues at a frightening pace, funding for local government has been cut, welfare benefits have been slashed and public-sector workers have had their pay held down, all to pay for the growing crisis in the capitalist economy.

In reality, though, the mood of a layer of activists about the Labour link drags behind that of the union rank and file, most of whom no longer see the Labour Party as a political voice for the working class. This can be seen in the good votes gained for candidates in union elections who call for the link to be broken.

But with a few notable exceptions, the union leaderships are reluctant to abandon Labour. Unwilling to face political reality, they exaggerate both the differences between Labour and the Tories and the importance of the 'concessions' they have got from Labour. These concessions are exemplified in the 2004 Warwick Agreement and subsequent agreements. Many clauses in these deals are minimal and some are laughable in the light of events.

The commitment to work in Europe "for the introduction of employment protection for temporary and agency workers" rings hollow when you consider the massive pressure on Labour MEPs from Downing Street to oppose the ending of the UK's opt-out from the European Working Time Directive. This has forced many temporary (and permanent) workers to work in excess of 44 hours a week.

Equally contradictory is the agreement to "engage in effective dialogue over the future of public-sector pensions". In March 2006, local government workers had to resort to a massive strike in defence of the local government pension scheme.

Public-sector union Unison has described the government's agreed protection against a two-tier public sector workforce (due to privatisation) as a lottery, and recently conducted a survey of Unison branches to ascertain just how meaningless it is.

Yet many of the union leaders talk vaguely about the need to "reclaim" Labour, with no plan, nor any programme to set about this. In fact, at Labour's last conference the trade unions actually agreed to reduce their voting influence at the conference!

Many trade union leaders actually prefer the fact that the power of conference has been replaced by the 'behind the scenes' activity of the Policy Forum, where they can hobnob with ministers and party big-wigs.

Lost members

Labour has lost millions of members, most of them drifting away disillusioned. Its constituency parties are largely dead, engaging in little local activity. Any that still have the temerity to move against right-wing MPs face suspension and/or witch-hunts of activists.

For example the Labour Party national executive recently suspended East Lothian constituency Labour Party after it passed a motion of no confidence in its Labour MP, former Unison president Ann Moffat.

The trade union leaders are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. They know that New Labour is a lost cause for the working class, but they are frightened of the alternative.

A new democratic party of the left would draw in precisely the left activists that they fear within their own organisations, those socialists who are being witch-hunted in Unison for example.

Knowing how unpopular the link with Labour is, the union leaders often attempt undemocratic, bureaucratic manoeuvres to prevent debate on this issue within their own unions. This is the case in Unison.

The Fire Brigades Union pulled out of financing the Labour Party following the Labour government's attitude to its national strike, the RMT was expelled from Labour for supporting the Scottish Socialist Party, and the PCS has recently set up a political fund on the basis that it will not be used to support Labour.

What is now needed to boost the campaign for a genuine, left political voice outside Labour is for unions such as these to call together trade union and community activists, and others on the left.

They should discuss the current political situation with a view to establishing a broad anti-cuts, pro-public service platform to start to mount electoral challenges to Labour from the left.

Such a move would serve as a pole of attraction to shop stewards and other union activists, renewing the campaigns within the unions to withdraw support from Labour.

The Campaign for a New Workers' Party (CNWP) was launched by socialists, trade unionists, community campaigners and young people who had had enough of the establishment parties and wanted to fight for a working-class political voice.

It is pushing for Labour Party affiliated unions to break the link with the Labour Party and is popularising the idea of a new, independent mass party for working people.

A new mass workers' party would play an important role in linking up many different struggles taking place across the country and giving more working people the confidence to fight back.

Labour's abandoning of the working class

Increasingly, the media and politicians talk about the 'disadvantage suffered by white working-class people', and the need to 'listen to their concerns'. Hazel Blears, the government's Communities Secretary, says New Labour should fight to win back support in white working-class communities that feel abandoned by all mainstream political parties, in order to halt the rise of the far-right, racist British National Party (BNP).

Naomi Byron

But rather than change its policies - like reversing privatisation, ending the housing shortage by a massive expansion in council housing or socialist nationalisation to save jobs - New Labour is cynically playing the race card.

Instead of listening to the real concerns of working people, these big business politicians are going along with the sensationalist and divisive way that the media has begun talking about the "white working-class" as something separate and distinct from working-class people of other races.

A useful report by the Runnymede Trust refutes the false 'racialisation' of these issues and pointed out that from housing to education to health "where the white working-class are losing out, it is to the wealthy rather than to migrants or minority ethnic groups."

Contrary to media headlines that white working-class boys are losing out dramatically to black and minority ethnic groups in the same income bracket when it comes to GCSE results, the biggest gap by far in education results is social class.

Wendy Bottero, one of the report's contributors, points out: "We should look at the impact of the closure of the manufacturing industries which once dominated working-class communities; the neo-liberal deregulation of the labour market which has made their jobs less secure; the sponsoring of middle-class advantage through 'parental choice' of schools and the marketisation of education; the sell-off of council housing which concentrates the most disadvantaged in the remaining estates; and the stalling of incomes and expenditure at the bottom of society while the wealth of the rich rockets."

The current media debate, says the trust report, "exaggerates the differences between ethnic groups and masks what they hold in common. By stressing the whiteness of the white working-class, the class inequality of other ethnic groups also slips from view.

"This sidesteps the real issue of class inequality, focusing on how disadvantaged groups compete for scarce resources, rather than exploring how that scarcity is shaped in the first place. If we really want to understand disadvantage, we need to shift our attention from who fights over the scraps from the table, to think instead about how much the table holds, and who really gets to enjoy the feast."

Working-class people of all races and backgrounds have no organised political voice and are marginalised, frustrated and angry. The real question is what can be done about it. That is why we are fighting for a new workers' party that can act as a channel for working people to take collective action to defend our rights and fight for a better future.

Divisions

Attempts to whip up the racial divide between working-class people are extremely dangerous, and must be fought. The only rights and improvements working-class people have won have been through our own collective struggle. The fight against racism and division is an absolutely essential part of this. The question of racism, particularly racist discrimination in the workplace and attacks against black and Asian people, is still a burning issue and one that needs to be taken up by the whole workers' movement.

Racism is deeply rooted in capitalism because the profit system makes use of 'divide and rule'. The more big business and the media succeed in creating resentment and division along racial lines, the harder it is for working people to fight back and improve our lives.

The more the main parties try to play the race card to prop up their collapsing votes, the easier it is for poisonous groups like the BNP to look respectable, gain support, and divide working people further. Help us in building a genuine alternative for all working people in the form of a new mass workers' party.

The working class needs its own mass party

The following is a report by Dave Carr of the discussion forum on working class political representation hosted by the Campaign for a new Workers' Party recently as part of Socialism 2008.

The closing rally of Socialism 2008, hosted by the Campaign for a New Workers' Party (CNWP), was on the theme of the fight for a working class political voice. Chairing the rally was Save Huddersfield NHS Kirklees councillor Jackie Grunsell.

The first speaker, chair of the CNWP and Socialist Party councillor Dave Nellist, highlighted the damaging legacy of eleven years of New Labour's big business agenda - wars, unemployment, economic insecurity and a massive wealth gap.

Dave attacked the return of sleazy Peter Mandelson as a government business minister. He referred to Mandelson on his appointment as effectively saying: 'I want to start where I left off - with the privatisation of the Post Office'. Dave demanded that the trade unions, who have funded New Labour that in return attacks pay and conditions, end their political affiliation.

Kevin Ovenden, a national leader of Respect, congratulated the Socialism 2008 organisers for their prescience in advertising the event with the subhead 'Marx was right' in advance of the current financial crisis! He spoke about the victims of this capitalist crisis, pointing out the extreme levels of poverty in inner city areas like Tower Hamlets where Respect has elected councillors and the MP George Galloway.

He said that Respect, which emerged from the anti-Iraq war movement, has had a difficult year because of its split with the SWP faction and recognised that Respect is not the 'finished article' in terms of working-class political representation.

Comedian and socialist Mark Steel started by saying that the biggest enemy on the left was cynicism - that the world can't be changed. But, following the election of Barack Obama, everyone believes it can - even reactionaries like George Bush!

Mark went on to criticise what he considered to be the failure of the socialist left - its failure to embrace small campaigning groups and propensity to "squabble".

Unfortunately, Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants' union was too ill to attend.

Hannah Sell, deputy general secretary of the Socialist Party, said one of the main obstacles to convincing broader layers to subscribe to the idea of building a new party and fighting for socialism is summed up by sympathetic people we meet who say "But can you really change anything?" Of course, the massive events of the last few weeks have radically changed people's political consciousness, namely, the crisis in capitalism and Obama's victory.
Hannah contrasted the government's £500 billion bank bailout with the union pay demands of all public sector workers which amount to only £5 billion - which the government says it cannot afford.

On the question of disagreements on the left, Hannah emphasised that striving for unity is very important but that in the course of this socialists must learn the lessons of previous failures to build new workers' parties to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

On the question of a new workers' party, the left trade union leaders have a vital role to play.
They can begin by calling a conference of trade unionists to discuss the need for workers' political representation.

Hannah concluded by saying: "the wave of capitalist triumphalism of the last 20 years has ended. We're now entering a new period in history where the ideas of Marxism will be embraced by mass movements of the working class."

Videos of this discussion forum are being hosted on the Socialist Party's website and can be viewed here.

Building a new workers' party: Trade unionist initiative needed

A number of left trade union leaders have recognised that the Labour Party in councils and in government is not going to stop trying to push through privatisation, cuts and other attacks on workers' pay and conditions. Some of them have drawn the conclusion that a new workers' party is necessary, but they have not yet taken early steps towards building such a party.

John McInally, vice-president of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), argues here - in a personal capacity - the need for the left trade union leaders to organise a conference later this year or early next year to discuss what steps could be taken. John is a member of the Socialist Party.

"The eleven years of Labour have been absolutely fantastic for the super-rich. Having a friendly Labour government has almost been better than a Tory one". If you wanted to sum up the record of the New Labour government then this statement from Philip Beresford, author of The Rich List, needs little elaboration.

In fact there is an arguable case that says New Labour is better for the super-rich than a Tory government. More privatisation has taken place under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown than under Margaret Thatcher and John Major combined.

Inequality is greater now than when New Labour came to power, the wealth of the super-rich has trebled, the multinationals and banks have made profits hand over fist and an unprecedented assault on public services has taken place.

Plus of course there has been the imperialist war in Iraq, which, amongst other things is the costliest and bloodiest privatisation in history.

The "moral compass" Brown claims he is guided by, looks catastrophically askew - there is not just the unforgivable privatisation of education, including the encouragement of creationists to 'educate' our children, but the promotion of the 'me first' unrestrained consumerism of a society falling deeper into crisis.

Corruption and sleaze

New Labour has been a sorry tale of corruption and sleaze. No lie is too big to tell; Brown's assertion that there would be no more 'boom or bust' is one of the worst examples, especially as he was aware that the boom for which he took credit, was based on unsustainable levels of cheap credit and ruthless exploitation of cheap immigrant labour. On the latter point, Brown fuelled racism with his call for 'British jobs for British workers', a slogan of the far-right British National Party.

In pursuing its "war on terror", also a major element in stoking up racism, New Labour has driven through some of the most oppressive legislation ever, that will be ruthlessly used against the labour and trade union movement at some future stage.

The Labour Party was never a socialist party but it was formed by the trade unions and workers saw it as the best vehicle for representing their interests; they saw it as 'theirs'.
Labour governments established the National Health Service and introduced other social advances, albeit in response to pressure as a result of struggle by workers on the industrial and political front. Socialists and Marxists played a crucial role in these struggles, something that has been airbrushed from history in the interests of the ruling class and labour and trade union 'leaders'.

New Labour will not be reclaimed by the working class. Even if the diminishing band of activists who think it can be rescued toiled for decades, they could never achieve their objective, not least because the democratic structures that may at one time have made such an endeavour possible have been completely shattered. There is no credible basis upon which to argue the Labour Party is reclaimable. To do so is a distraction from, and a barrier to, the task of developing an alternative form of political representation. Investing further precious time and energy in pursuing this unobtainable goal is a waste of time and a fetter to building a genuine alternative.

The biggest obstacles to the development of such a political alternative are the leaders of the New Labour-affiliated unions and the Trades Union Congress (TUC), whose behaviour in the face of New Labour has been craven. They argue that we must concentrate on avoiding the re-election of a Tory government, ignoring the fact that New Labour is no longer capable of beating the Tories precisely because it has carried out unpopular 'Tory' policies.

Even during the long eighteen years of the Thatcher/Major regimes, the trade union leaders closest to the Labour 'modernisers' like Neil Kinnock argued we must not take strike action because it would damage the chances of the return of a Labour government.

Disgracefully, they stood to one side during the great miners' strike of 1984/5, collecting money and making fine speeches, but eschewing the type of solidarity industrial action that would have finished off Thatcher. They also tried to disrupt and sabotage the tremendous non-payment battle against the poll tax, arguing that we must 'obey the law' as otherwise no future Labour government could govern with credibility and authority.

The majority of national trade union leaders have accepted the logic of the market and can conceive of no alternative to pro-big business governments. Unfortunately, this is even true of some who were seen as part of the 'awkward squad'

Yet New Labour has given the union leaders virtually nothing in return for their support, for instance Brown has firmly declared there will be no relaxation of the anti-trade union laws. As private sector donors desert Labour and with the party virtually bankrupt financially as well as in every other respect, the unions are expected to foot the bill - currently 92% of funding comes from affiliated unions.

Instead of using this leverage to insist on even the most minimal concessions to help working people, the union leaders incredibly are content to allow the pro-market agenda to continue, hoping desperately that a few scraps might be flung in their direction.

The tremendous industrial potential of the trade union movement has been held in check and concessions left unclaimed by those leaders who argue there is no alternative to Labour.

Action gets results

The recent tanker drivers' strike demonstrated that while the industrial working class has shrunk, its impact and effectiveness can still be enormous. However, in recent times the main arena for struggle has been in the public sector, with left, campaigning leaderships like those in the PCS (Public and Commercial Services union) and RMT (Rail Maritime and Transport union) taking the lead. It is there that workers are learning the fundamental truth that if you do nothing the bosses and government will walk all over you and that campaigning works and action gets results.

The PCS's record under the leadership of general secretary Mark Serwotka, president Janice Godrich, and the Left Unity leadership, with the Socialist Party playing a key role, has demonstrated political and industrial campaigning work based on and underpinned by a willingness to take action when required.

Where action is deliverable, effective and sustainable, it can build workers' confidence and wrest concessions. There is an alternative to bending the knee.

The consistent campaigning record of unions like PCS and RMT throws into sharp relief the failure of the Labour affiliated union leaders who are incapable of even securing the easing of the anti-trade union laws. Even on the question of agency workers and on issues of basic equality, equal pay for example, New Labour has pulled up the drawbridge and told the Labour-affiliated unions: 'you have no alternative, it is us or the Tories'.

There is now a real need to move to begin to build a viable and sustainable alternative to Labour capable of starting the process of offering working people the type of political representation they need and deserve.

As a first step, a conference must be held of all those who support and are committed to building such an alternative. In doing so we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the last decade where a series of initiatives have failed; the Scottish Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance and Respect being the most obvious examples.

Any new configuration promising political representation to workers cannot simply be announced as an accomplished fact that demands the immediate allegiance of workers, but instead must be patiently built and tested. To be successful, some very basic, minimal, but critical conditions are needed.

Firstly the trade unions have an important role to play. This does not necessarily mean, at this stage, the complete endorsement or affiliation of any trade union.
What is required is the support and endorsement of genuine left socialist leaders and activists in the trade union movement and their engagement in building such a formation. We should also see this process as being predicated on a commitment to stand trade union based candidates in elections.

Secondly, the task of building such an organisation needs to begin with an alliance agreed around a minimum but extensive programme capable of attracting millions of workers to its banner. In the Socialist Party's opinion this should include a socialist clause. However, this, along with the other demands, would be decided by democratic discussion among the forces involved.

There is no contradiction in the expressions 'minimum' and 'extensive'. Minimum, in the sense that some issues almost pick themselves and around which agreement can be secured. But extensive in the sense that such a programme, if fought for and achieved, would mean tremendous steps forward for working people. The programme must address what needs to be done to defend workers' interests but also define and articulate their hopes and aspirations.

Demands

Such demands would surely include: opposition to cuts, privatisation, war, fascism, racism, nuclear weapons and destruction of the environment; for a living wage for all, a properly funded welfare state with well-paid and trained staff delivering vital services in communities where they live and work; repeal of the anti-trade union laws; and international workers' solidarity.
Thirdly, if the left is serious about building a genuine and sustainable alternative then we must say upfront and without mincing our words that the lessons of history must be learnt; in creating any such alliance there can be no place whatsoever for the destructive rule or ruin tactics that have characterised the dead ends of recent years.

An undemocratic, top-down approach will not work. The young people who are becoming active in struggle in the 21st century, correctly have a horror of bureaucracy.

Their experience of the betrayals of New Labour and the right-wing trade union leaders, combined with the effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union - which capitalism worldwide falsely equated with genuine socialism - mean that democracy is particularly vital to the new generation.

It is crucial that a new formation be open and welcoming to all those who want to work together against the neo-liberal onslaught on the working class. It must be based on a federal structure where groups and individuals have the right to democratically organise and argue for their position. Differences cannot be airbrushed away but neither can they be the most prominent feature that defines a new configuration.

Where one organisation is initially numerically dominant, we need to find ways to make sure that the views of other significant currents and trends are heard and that consensus is sought on key issues.

Trade union involvement would be vital in providing a real sense of 'discipline in action' of the type that should apply in the best examples of industrial action - concentration on priorities, and debate without the type of sectarian demoralisation that sometimes targets even the best left union leaders rather than employers and the political establishment.

This is especially important in setting out clear and disciplined campaigning work.

Union involvement

Who then should be involved in such an initiative? Given acceptance of the points outlined above then there is surely no reason why any organisation should exclude itself. It would be naïve to suggest that all would be plain sailing. But active trade union involvement would greatly increase the chance of developing an effective organisation that is intent on sharply focusing on the programme that workers see as relevant to their day-to-day lives.

What about those left Labour MPs who have tried to keep the socialist flag flying amidst the corruption of New Labour? They also should be involved in building alternative political representation for workers.

Some of these MPs argue that it is best they remain in the Labour Party for the foreseeable future because they at least provide some limited representation for workers and trade unions in parliament and to lose that platform would be a setback. However, by remaining inside Labour they give a degree of credibility and 'left cover' to a party that is antagonistic to the interests of the working class and is, to put it bluntly, an enemy.

Secondly, it is simply wrong to assume, as some do, that if such MPs stood under the banner of a trade union based organisation in the future then they would automatically lose their seats.
On the contrary some of these MPs - who have built up considerable capital with activists and workers by opposing the New Labour project - could very well, standing on a programme such as that outlined above, not only win their seats but be highly effective tribunes for building the alternative to the rotten political establishment New Labour is now a torch-bearer for.

Building an alternative to New Labour is not, and cannot be, a risk free business. But the greater risk by far, is failing to recognise that the main historical and political task currently in front of socialists is to build a political alternative. Hesitation now in firmly espousing that cause can only be a fetter, or at least an impediment, to building an alternative, no matter how unintentionally.
The debate will continue on these and other matters. But it is clearly now time to organise a conference that, while focusing on the industrial issues facing workers and the unions, is also capable of addressing the key task of beginning the process of developing effective political representation. A key aim should be standing candidates as outlined above.

To avoid this issue would be an abdication of responsibility and would disappoint and disorient the more politically conscious workers in the trade unions and working class. To pose the question of what is required, how to develop the struggle politically as well as industrially, but then dodge the only real answer - building a mass political alternative to represent the interests of our class in the way the parties of the political establishment represent the bosses and the millionaires - is no longer an option.

There should be no extended delay in organising such a conference, but it is important to get it right.

That indicates informal discussion between interested groups, but especially left leaders in unions like PCS, RMT and undoubtedly others, to set out the basis of the conference and hopefully have an aim of holding it at the end of this year or early next year.

Socialists should be clear that such an initiative will incur the wrath of New Labour and the leaders of the affiliated unions (especially when they see their own best activists expressing support for such a development) and even in unions like PCS there will be opposition.
But without political representation we cannot effectively defend the interests of union members, let alone those of workers generally, never mind achieve what we deserve and need.

The case for building alternative political representation for working people is unanswerable and the task set out by history can no longer be avoided.

¡el socialismo es LA LIBERACION!

Merseyside Campaign for a New Workers’ Party presents…
a film by Ken Loach and Jim Allen (1995)
“Land and Freedom”
the SPANISH CIVIL WAR against FASCISM
followed by discussion and speakers including
SPECIAL GUEST: Ian Hart, starring actor

7.30pm, Thurs 16th Oct
at LIVERPOOL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Myrtle St.
the latest of our ‘City of Culture’ alternative events highlighting working-class culture in Liverpool www.myspace.com/cityofculture08

For the millions, not the millionaires!
The Campaign for a New Workers’ Party is promoting a working-class alternative to the far right and the three big-business parties. Visit: www.cnwp.org.uk
Next local meeting: 18th Sep, 7.30pm, Casa, 29 Hope St
T 07910 097 607 (Clara) E cityofculture08@yahoo.co.uk

Liverpool CNWP Alternative Capital of Culture Event

DAVE SINCLAIR
Photographic Exhibition
31st July – 28th August
Liverpool Dockers Strike
1995-97
FACT Centre
88 Wood Street - Liverpool, L1 4DQ
t: +44 (0) 151 707 4441 - www.fact.co.uk

----------------
Dave Sinclair is a photographer from Liverpool who now lives and works in East London. He started taking photos in the late '70's while studying art at Liverpool Poly and travelled around Britain in the '80's. He was the Militant newspaper staff photographer from '85 to '90. He is publishing a book with the Bluecoat Press of about 100 photos from this site called 'Dave Sinclair's Liverpool'
More of his work can be seen on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave_sinclair_liverpool_photos/
-------------------
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMME - City of Culture 08
"Liverpool is Capital of Culture in 2008 but many people feel bitter that culture has become a product marketed by the CoC Company. The emphasis of the event has been on blockbusters events with limited and often expensive entrance fees. The marketing of our city has been put first rather than its people and their fantastic culture.

Although we support the title of European Capital of Culture for Liverpool, we want to put forward the wonderful working class and grassroots culture our city has. The intiative was launched by the Merseyside Campaign for a New Worker's Party – www.cnwp.org.uk
a Capital of Culture for the millions, not the millionaires.
www.myspace.com/cityofculture08

National Shop Stewards Network

Debate on political representation

One of the eagerly awaited workshops at the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) conference on 28 June, was a debate about political representation. Giving introductions from the top table were: Dave Nellist, chair of the Campaign for a New Workers Party (CNWP) and Unite member; Unjum Mirza, Left List and a RMT member: and John Rogers, Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and Unison member.

Chris Moore

The way forward for working class political representation is clearly a key issue facing trade union activists today, with New Labour driving through privatisation and attempting to hold pay below inflation in the public sector. In May, Labour suffered its worst local election results since records began, and more recently a 17.6% swing to the Tories in the Labour heartland of Crewe and Nantwich and a humiliation in the Henley-on-Thames byelection.

Dave Nellist spoke of the need for a new independent party of working people saying: “It’s not so much what direction for the Labour Party, but how to build an alternative”. He listed some of New Labour’s crimes, including: “Seven wars, the consolidation and extension of private ownership in health, education, prisons and council services”. They protect the rich, while abolishing the 10p tax rate and they means test those who claim benefits.

To have any chance of reforming the Labour Party, Dave estimated it would need the injection of at least 50-100 activists into each constituency and 30-60,000 overall. But instead of this, the reality is: “A sclerosis within the organisation of the Labour Party and a haemorrhaging of members with 200,000 leaving since 1997. Neil Kinnock expelled socialists in the 1980s and Tony Blair expelled socialism itself. Today we have one party of capitalism divided into three and they all protect and extend the influence of big business”. Blair and Brown have “consolidated and codified Thatcherism”.

Dave warned that the growing political vacuum is not guaranteed to be filled in a progressive direction and pointed to the threat of the BNP. Issues such as immigration are used by right wing parties. As recession bites and public services are contracted, these parties could grow.

For these reasons the CNWP was launched some years ago to begin the process of building a party for working people. But he explained it will be experiences that will significantly change the situation. For instance the Fire Brigades Union left the Labour Party after fire fighters had torn up their party cards during their dispute. He also explained how attempts like the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance and George Galloway’s Respect were lessons on how not to build among working people.

Dave said that a call from trade union leaders, such as Mark Serwotka of the civil servants’ PCS union and Bob Crow of the rail workers’ RMT: “To organise a serious conference on building an alternative to Labour, would get a response”. He also explained the importance of popularising the challenges to the Labour Party such as the FBU member who stood in Gloucester and the NHS campaigners in Kidderminster and Huddersfield.

The Left Party in Germany has 57 MPs. Although they have the advantages of a national figure, Oskar Lafontaine, and an election system of proportional representation, a new party could also grow rapidly in Britain. He described left Labour MPs as: “Prisoners of the New Labour machine smuggling notes out”. If left MP John McDonnell called for a new workers’ party “he could fill the Albert Hall with activists”.

Unjum Mirza, from the Left List, which was formed after the recent split in Respect, said: “The crisis of political representation is part of the wider crisis”. He talked of food riots while the price of basic foods shoots up, the housing crisis and the rising cost of oil, saying that ‘who pays for the crisis, is the backdrop to the crisis of political representation’.

He said: “The key goal of fighting for political representation comes from the mood from below”, adding: “The primary task is to generalise the mood to fight back, it’s not for us to pay for the crisis it’s to raise the combativity of our class”. He mentioned the Left Party in Germany to illustrate the potential for political representation. Quoting the 1916 Clyde workers, he said: “We are with you as long as you represent us, if not we act independently”. Political representation is not just the electoral front but is linked to war, housing and other issues.

John Rogers from the Labour Representation Committee, a left grouping within the Labour Party, and Lambeth Unison, said: “The bosses have three parties and the working class have not got one”. Admitting that “workers have almost no voice in the Labour Party”, he said it was not worth starting on the government because he would never finish. He went on: “So what do we do? I don’t think any of us really know”. Later, he said: “Somehow we’ll work out the answer”. But he claimed that: “Our lack of understanding is nothing compared to the confusion of the trade union leaders”. Mentioning the motion at Unison’s conference calling for a review of the political fund, he said it was not about disaffiliation from the Labour Party.

He used the examples of a rally for the RMT cleaners and a speech in Parliament by victimised trade unionist Karen Reissmann to show that the LRC still has a role. He said the handful of socialist MPs in the Labour Party can help to boost morale in an industrial dispute and the LRC can be used to book rooms at Westminster.

Various people then spoke from the floor. Roger Bannister of Unison explained that the union’s rules blocked any call for disaffiliation at Unison conference, with those that campaigned for it being witch hunted. But the resolution that was put forward would lead to a pro and anti Labour Party debate. He said the leadership of Unison knew that “if the members were allowed to debate the issue of disaffiliation, the tide would be against the Labour Party”.

Nancy Taaffe from Unison said the question of political representation has to be resolved and that Unison has to put the interests of members before the interests of the Labour Party. Gary Clarke from the postal workers’ CWU asked how many last chances his general secretary Billy Hayes wanted to give the Labour Party. Workers Power member Jeremy Dewar, a vice chair of the CNWP, said if John Rogers believes the bosses have three parties when workers have none, the obvious answer is to form one. Alec McFadden said: “Without a new workers’ party, the next generation will suffer”.

Tony Mulhearn, a member of PCS and a leader of the Liverpool Council in the 1980s and Terry Pearce from Unite, both asked if John Rogers still believes the Labour Party can be reclaimed. Tony said that by staying in the Labour Party, left MPs only legitimise the role of the right wing. Several delegates asked: What is happening in the Left List; what are its aims; what has happened with Respect; and where is it going? Unfortunately no answers were given and an opportunity was lost to draw further lessons from the shipwrecked Respect project.
NSSN delegates were inspired by the compelling case put for a new workers’ party but were left with more questions than answers from those speakers who as yet do not support this call.

(all trade union members spoke in a personal capacity)